Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Why would Cheney lie?
 
 

Originally posted by pollard:
  apparently Cheney had also met Edwards several times

[ggw]

Originally posted by hitman:
 I'm sure that Franks taking the blame has nothing to do with trying to make Bush look better (shaking head in disbelief).

So, you are saying that it wasn't General Franks who made that military decision?

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  Why would Cheney lie?
 
   

for a good line to use I guess
 
 here is the article http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041006_463.html

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  Why would Cheney lie?
 

he's a politician, why would he tell the truth?

[hitman]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   

Originally posted by hitman:
 I'm sure that Franks taking the blame has nothing to do with trying to make Bush look better (shaking head in disbelief).

So, you are saying that it wasn't General Franks who made that military decision? [/b]

Franks doesn't make those decisions without say so/input from the White House and Rumsfeld.  Just like Stormin' Norman didn't make them all by himself in Desert Storm.

[Bags]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  The government shouldn't be doing those things that people could better do for themselves.  Not only for financial reasons, but also because an increasing reliance on government ultimately undermines true community, where people should be looking out for their common good among themselves.

But taking private retirement accounts as an example, when people fuck up (through their own fault -- which is HIGHLY likely as most Joe Schmoes believe in their hearts that one day they'll be a millionaire so will be very risky in their investing -- or because the market collapses or an Enron dupes millions or California falls in to the sea), government will have to bail them out.  At a much higher cost in an emergency and short period of time.  There are certain absolutely essential services you cannot risk.

[Bags]

Originally posted by Arthwys:
  Oh, and something else that i just remembered, I really liked Bush's jibe at Kerry about...."i don't know how he plans on paying for all that.."
 
 That's just it...i'm sure our government could accomplish a whole heck of a lot if we gave it more powers and loads more money.  Only thing is, there's many of us around that don't want to live with that kind of pervasive government presence in our lives.

The irony is that under Bush the government has grown, and though there have been tax cuts, it's basically cost us $5 trillion as we switched from a surplus to a deficit...
 
 And when I say govt is grown, I'm not even talking about the proposed govt controls over our religion, bodies, marraiges, medical research, etc.
 
 But for some reason the old party tenets stick in people's minds -- Republicans mean smaller government and bigger (i.e., better) defense.  Talk about knee jerk assumptions not based in truth anymore...

[Bags]

Originally posted by Arthwys:
  I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.

Disproven in a comparison of Clinton and GW's administrations.  You're thinking of the Grand Old Party of yore.  It largely doesn't exist anymore, and has been replaced by a Christian jihad.

[Bags]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
 that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education.        

Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation.  That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND.  Seems like a hollow victory, don't it??

[ggw]

A.  Better to be responsible only for the fuck-ups than for everyone.
 
 B.  The fact that people fuck themselves isn't a decent rationale for enabling them to fuck themselves.  But I guess we have pretty much given up on the idea of personal responsibility, which is pretty much the death knell for a nation built on the Protestant work ethic (God helps those who help themselves).
 
 

Originally posted by Bags:
 But taking private retirement accounts as an example, when people fuck up (through their own fault -- which is HIGHLY likely as most Joe Schmoes believe in their hearts that one day they'll be a millionaire so will be very risky in their investing -- or because the market collapses or an Enron dupes millions or California falls in to the sea), government will have to bail them out.  At a much higher cost in an emergency and short period of time.  There are certain absolutely essential services you cannot risk.

[Bags]

Originally posted by Arthwys:
  I'm mostly republican due to my opinion that "conservative, responsible spending" is the best way to go.  That and less tax, hence more consumer spending power.  Basic stuff, yet is any of it really working?  

Okay, but if the "less taxes" results in cuts to funding services, then the consumer spending is going to higher costs for local taxes, property taxes, healthcare, education (including college), housing -- not Walmart or Chrysler.

[ggw]

The idea that comparing Clinton's two terms and Bush's one term is apples to apples is a fallacy.
 
 First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend.  Second, Clinton had the good fortune of serving during the largest economic expansion in the history of the U.S.  Third, it was Keynes, the champion economist of the liberals, who recommended deficit spending during an economic slowdown, which kind of puts the kabosh on the left's faux outrage at deficit spending.  Fourth, deficits didn't matter before, they don't matter now.  Fifth, every president spends oodles during their first term in order to garner support so that they can win a second term.  Sixth, the fact that Bush has failed to exemplify traditional conservative small government values is not a viable reason to vote for Kerry who espouse big government values.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

and don't forget that Bush has the largest cock of any US president.
 http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5789
 
 
 

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  The idea that comparing Clinton's two terms and Bush's one term is apples to apples is a fallacy.
 
 First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend.  Second, Clinton had the good fortune of serving during the largest economic expansion in the history of the U.S.  Third, it was Keynes, the champion economist of the liberals, who recommended deficit spending during an economic slowdown, which kind of puts the kabosh on the left's faux outrage at deficit spending.  Fourth, deficits didn't matter before, they don't matter now.  Fifth, every president spends oodles during their first term in order to garner support so that they can win a second term.  Sixth, the fact that Bush has failed to exemplify traditional conservative small government values is not a viable reason to vote for Kerry who espouse big government values.

[Bags]

But it will be everyone who retires within the same period if the market crashes.  Which happens.  Not just fuck ups who want to get rich using their retirement mechanisms.
 
 It's true, there is no trupe personal responsibility because when the ship sinks, U.S. citizens -- liberals and conservatives alike --look to the government to bail them out.  
 
 

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  A.  Better to be responsible only for the fuck-ups than for everyone.
 
 B.  The fact that people fuck themselves isn't a decent rationale for enabling them to fuck themselves.  But I guess we have pretty much given up on the idea of personal responsibility, which is pretty much the death knell for a nation built on the Protestant work ethic (God helps those who help themselves).
 
   

Originally posted by Bags:
 But taking private retirement accounts as an example, when people fuck up (through their own fault -- which is HIGHLY likely as most Joe Schmoes believe in their hearts that one day they'll be a millionaire so will be very risky in their investing -- or because the market collapses or an Enron dupes millions or California falls in to the sea), government will have to bail them out.  At a much higher cost in an emergency and short period of time.  There are certain absolutely essential services you cannot risk.

[/b]

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by Bags:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
 that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education.            

Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation.  That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND.  Seems like a hollow victory, don't it?? [/b]

didn't fund?  $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year.  while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
 
 plus, funding for major elementary and secondary education programs has INCREASED by 43% in the last 3 years.